Athiesm

[abbielives!]

here is a good athiest website:

http://www.thedebatehour.com/

if you enjoy debating free market types go to the forums,
warning: some of the mare very good at drwing you into debating the small details, and cause you to miss the big picture, also they can be very nasty.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Looks like a real arrogant prick to me, like all the rest of the atheists. I'm sure many of you will find kinship with this young man.

[wtfm8lol]

Looks like a real arrogant prick to me, like all the rest of the atheists. I'm sure many of you will find kinship with this young man.

we have a reason to be arrogant. we haven't been tricked into believing in sky-fairies or other such magical bullshit.

[Comrade J]

There's nothing wrong with arrogance if you're right. That's why I like Richard Dawkins :)

[Capitalist Lawyer]

we have a reason to be arrogant. we haven't been tricked into believing in sky-fairies or other such magical bullshit.

You sound like all of those convicted juveniles that are currently sleeping in detention cells across the nation.

I bet you weren't even baptized you freak, and I even bet that you wish you were.


There's nothing wrong with arrogance if you're right.

Good luck making friends and finding happiness in your life with that attitude.

[Pow R. Toc H.]

That is the most kickass saying ever. I get called arrogant all time by these stupid *****es and even though I'm correct, it seems to not matter! Now I've got something to throw in there faces. Hail Dawkins!

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Fine, if all religious people are "stupid *****es who've been fooled" then all working-class people are fat, stupid slobs.

How's that for arrogance?

[wtfm8lol]

I bet you weren't even baptized you freak, and I even bet that you wish you were.


baptized and confirmed, actually. wish i hadn't been baptized or coerced by my parents into going through the confirmation.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

baptized and confirmed, actually. wish i hadn't been baptized or coerced by my parents into going through the confirmation.

Why? Was it really that bad? Would you rather have them sell you on the streets for a crack hit?

There are religious nuts and then there are anti-religious nuts.

[wtfm8lol]

Why? Was it really that bad?

not much of a reason. i just wish it hadn't happened. i know it doesn't really make any difference except the church thinks it has one more member.


Would you rather have them sell you on the streets for a crack hit?


of course not, but thats a rather ridiculous false dichotomy.

[Comrade J]

we have a reason to be arrogant. we haven't been tricked into believing in sky-fairies or other such magical bullshit.

You sound like all of those convicted juveniles that are currently sleeping in detention cells across the nation.

I bet you weren't even baptized you freak, and I even bet that you wish you were.

Haha yeah what a freak, - f you haven't been fully immersed in a pool of water before a crowd of smiling people, who all believe that a virgin was impregnated by a fairy in the sky several thousand years ago, whilst having an incantation read out to "wash your sins" away, then you are indeed a freak. Fuck, I'm actually contemplating handing myself in at the asylum, I may indeed be insane for not attending a magic ceremony! :unsure:



There's nothing wrong with arrogance if you're right.

Good luck making friends and finding happiness in your life with that attitude.

Thanks, I have lots of friends, we're all arrogant (and right) together ;)

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 26, 2007 04:02 pm

we have a reason to be arrogant. we haven't been tricked into believing in sky-fairies or other such magical bullshit.

You sound like all of those convicted juveniles that are currently sleeping in detention cells across the nation.
This is rich. Don't tell me you're suggesting a correlation between atheism and crime? :lol:

[wtfm8lol]

Originally posted by MrDoom+March 26, 2007 11:31 am--> (MrDoom @ March 26, 2007 11:31 am)
Capitalist [email protected] 26, 2007 04:02 pm

we have a reason to be arrogant. we haven't been tricked into believing in sky-fairies or other such magical bullshit.

You sound like all of those convicted juveniles that are currently sleeping in detention cells across the nation.
This is rich. Don't tell me you're suggesting a correlation between atheism and crime? :lol: [/b]
i wouldn't entirely be surprised if there turned out to be a negative correlation.

my reasoning being that atheism and intelligence positively correlate and intelligence quotient and crime negatively correlate.

[Pow R. Toc H.]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 26, 2007 04:09 pm
Fine, if all religious people are "stupid *****es who've been fooled" then all working-class people are fat, stupid slobs.

How's that for arrogance?
When did we start discussing weight? Surely your not making the connection that faith can lead to obesity? I also feel you have no proof for your comment about the working class. If so, I would greatly appecriate a link or some kind of evidence. I would also like a link where it says being misled religiously can lead to an increase in weight and slobishness. Thank You.

[apathy maybe]

I love it when OIers talk dirty to each other. One thing that makes me remember that I do actually have things in common, atheism.

I was brought up in a Catholic family, baptised, communion the whole thing. I watched my younger sister (10 years younger) go through it too. What a waste of time, energy etc. Why the fuck bother?

It did nothing for my life, except make me waste large chunks of it going to church, sitting around in church being bored, and then going home again.

It isn't even as if you need the religion to get the festivities, as demonstrated every year 4-5 months before Christmas and Easter.

So, fuck religion, fuck god. If you are going to believe in anything you cannot prove, why not the Invisible Pink Unicorn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible+Pink+Unicorn)?

Here is a picture of her on Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ipu.png

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 26, 2007 11:02 am

we have a reason to be arrogant. we haven't been tricked into believing in sky-fairies or other such magical bullshit.

You sound like all of those convicted juveniles that are currently sleeping in detention cells across the nation.

I bet you weren't even baptized you freak, and I even bet that you wish you were.


There's nothing wrong with arrogance if you're right.

Good luck making friends and finding happiness in your life with that attitude.
I was. I wish I wasn't.

And I'm actually pretty fuckin' happy.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Haha yeah what a freak, - f you haven't been fully immersed in a pool of water before a crowd of smiling people, who all believe that a virgin was impregnated by a fairy in the sky several thousand years ago, whilst having an incantation read out to "wash your sins" away, then you are indeed a freak. Fuck, I'm actually contemplating handing myself in at the asylum, I may indeed be insane for not attending a magic ceremony

I'm sure the majority of the citizens in the USA have been baptized, probably a very large majority have, so are you calling us all insane?

Yeah, we're all freaks...but the guy walking around with a tattoo on his face and 500 piercings and who has a police record is a "sane citizen".


Thanks, I have lots of friends, we're all arrogant (and right) togeth

And I bet you all walk around with black plungers on your heads and are proud to be individuals and unlike us stupid sheep.


It did nothing for my life, except make me waste large chunks of it going to church, sitting around in church being bored, and then going home again.

But drug use and violent video games are constructive activities, right?

:lol:

Another question. Did you even play little league baseball or any other sport when you were a youth?

Are you normal?


When did we start discussing weight? Surely your not making the connection that faith can lead to obesity? I also feel you have no proof for your comment about the working class. If so, I would greatly appecriate a link or some kind of evidence. I would also like a link where it says being misled religiously can lead to an increase in weight and slobishness. Thank You.

You missed the point.

I think some of the more mature communists here said it best:

"I despise incompetence but I also can't stand elitistism."

Something that a communist, a capitalist...a believer or a non-believer can share in common.


This is rich. Don't tell me you're suggesting a correlation between atheism and crime

I wouldn't say Atheism, but rather just general apathy which is probably in correlation with atheism.



ADOLESCENTS' PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE OF RELIGION FOUND TO LESSEN THEIR DRUG USE

Especially When Facing Life Hardships

WASHINGTON - When adolescents perceive religion as important in their lives, it may lower rates of cigarette smoking, heavy drinking and marijuana use, according to a study that tracked urban adolescents from middle school through high school. The researchers from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine found that the perceived importance of religion was particularly important for teens who were facing a lot of life stressors. These findings are reported in the March issue of Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, published by the American Psychological Association (APA).

Those adolescents who viewed religion as a meaningful part of their life and a way to cope with problems were half as likely to use drugs than adolescents who didn't view religion as important. And this held most true while facing hardships, like having an unemployed parent or being sick themselves, according to Thomas Ashby Wills, Ph.D., Alison M. Yaeger, Ph.D., and James M. Sandy, Ph.D. This is known as a "buffering effect," from the concept that something about religiosity serves to buffer the impact of adverse circumstances, said the researchers. The effect of religiosity was not limited by ethnicity, as comparable effects were for adolescents from all of the ethnic groups in the study (African-Americans, Hispanics, and Caucasians).

From a sample of 1,182 adolescents in the metropolitan area who were surveyed on four different occasions from 7th grade through 10th grade, the authors tracked the adolescents' drinking, cigarette smoking, marijuana use and perception of religion through early to late adolescence. This enabled the authors to take into account developmental changes that occur during these ages that might influence drug use. Importance of religion was determined by responses to simple questions such as, "To be able to rely on religious teachings when you have a problem", or "To be able to turn to prayer when you're facing a personal problem". Participants rated each question on a scale from "Not at all important" to "Very important."

"These buffering effects could be occurring," said Dr. Wills, "because religiosity may influence a person's attitudes and values, providing meaning and purpose in life. It could also help persons to view problems in a different way. Besides offering coping techniques, being involved with a religion can also create more healthy social networks than adolescents would have if they got involved with drugs to find social outlets." This research was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

http://www.apa.org/releases/teen_religiosity.html


The research also found that teenagers from less traditional families are more likely to have a tumultuous or periodically troubled adolescence and, as adults, to be in less traditional families and to be more poorly adjusted.

Daniel Offer, M.D., professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Feinberg School of Medicine, and colleagues conducted a longitudinal study that evaluated 67 normal, mentally healthy, suburban male participants initially in 1962, when the boys were 14, and again in 1997, at age 48. Participants were questioned about family relationships, home environment, dating, sexuality, religion, parental discipline and general activities. Ten percent of the families were African-American or Hispanic.
As reported in the December issue of Adolescent and Family Health, the men who had been raised in intact two-parent, middle-class families were more likely to be married, be involved in traditional family relationships, attend religious services and participate in sports or exercise.

Unlike the boys in the "continuous" group, those from the "tumultuous" group were more likely to come from disrupted backgrounds. As adults, they were significantly less likely to be married or involved in traditional family relationships and unlikely to attend church and to exercise.

Results of the study indicate that continuity is an important aspect of development, Offer said.

The teenagers who came from a positive family background had no adolescent turmoil, sailed through adolescence and young adulthood and continued to live a life in harmony with their background.

Those in the "tumultuous" adolescent group also continued to reflect the adjustment of their teenage years, Offer said. The boys in this group had questioned cultural norms and, as adults, were more likely to live outside cultural norms.

"Both groups still hold on to the position they had as adolescents and young adults," Offer said.

Offer also said that results of this study test the psychoanalytic theory that adolescents who appear to be well adjusted as teenagers are "ticking time bombs" who will show significant maladjustment later in life.

[Lenin II]

I no longer believe in the existence of god, and have come to believe the surprisingly unpopular notion that the world is godless, without purpose and existential. It’s hard for people to accept that others do not believe in God. Religion provides hope and if someone is rejecting religion, it forces others to re-evaluate theirs.

Why do we not follow religion? Let me count the ways. It closes minds to scientific truth, oppresses women as second-class citizens and subjects children to cruelty and psychological abuse with the threat of constant damnation. It spawns endless intolerance, oppression, bigotry, arrogance, child abuse, homophobia, abortion-clinic bombings, cruelty, war, suicide bombers, and educational systems that teach ignorance when it comes to math and science.

You call us arrogant? I think religion and faith is the most arrogant force of all.
When scientists don’t know something — like why the universe came into being or how the first self-replicating molecules formed — they admit it. Pretending to know things one doesn’t know is a profound liability in science. And yet it is the life-blood of faith. One of the monumental ironies of religious discourse can be found in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while claiming to know facts about cosmology, chemistry and biology that no scientist knows. When considering questions about the nature of the cosmos and our place within it, atheists tend to draw their opinions from science. This isn’t arrogance; it is intellectual honesty.

The good effects of religion can certainly be disputed. In most cases, it seems that religion at best gives people bad reasons to behave well, when good reasons are actually available. Ask yourself, which is more moral, helping the poor out of concern for their suffering, or doing so because you think the creator of the universe will punish you for not doing it?

I fear no eternal hell as long as I can be away from evangelicals and right-wingers.
NOW THAT’S HELL.

[wtfm8lol]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 26, 2007 12:16 pm

This is rich. Don't tell me you're suggesting a correlation between atheism and crime

I wouldn't say Atheism, but rather just general apathy which is probably in correlation with atheism.



ADOLESCENTS' PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE OF RELIGION FOUND TO LESSEN THEIR DRUG USE

Especially When Facing Life Hardships

WASHINGTON - When adolescents perceive religion as important in their lives, it may lower rates of cigarette smoking, heavy drinking and marijuana use, according to a study that tracked urban adolescents from middle school through high school. The researchers from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine found that the perceived importance of religion was particularly important for teens who were facing a lot of life stressors. These findings are reported in the March issue of Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, published by the American Psychological Association (APA).

Those adolescents who viewed religion as a meaningful part of their life and a way to cope with problems were half as likely to use drugs than adolescents who didn't view religion as important. And this held most true while facing hardships, like having an unemployed parent or being sick themselves, according to Thomas Ashby Wills, Ph.D., Alison M. Yaeger, Ph.D., and James M. Sandy, Ph.D. This is known as a "buffering effect," from the concept that something about religiosity serves to buffer the impact of adverse circumstances, said the researchers. The effect of religiosity was not limited by ethnicity, as comparable effects were for adolescents from all of the ethnic groups in the study (African-Americans, Hispanics, and Caucasians).

From a sample of 1,182 adolescents in the metropolitan area who were surveyed on four different occasions from 7th grade through 10th grade, the authors tracked the adolescents' drinking, cigarette smoking, marijuana use and perception of religion through early to late adolescence. This enabled the authors to take into account developmental changes that occur during these ages that might influence drug use. Importance of religion was determined by responses to simple questions such as, "To be able to rely on religious teachings when you have a problem", or "To be able to turn to prayer when you're facing a personal problem". Participants rated each question on a scale from "Not at all important" to "Very important."

"These buffering effects could be occurring," said Dr. Wills, "because religiosity may influence a person's attitudes and values, providing meaning and purpose in life. It could also help persons to view problems in a different way. Besides offering coping techniques, being involved with a religion can also create more healthy social networks than adolescents would have if they got involved with drugs to find social outlets." This research was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

http://www.apa.org/releases/teen_religiosity.html


The research also found that teenagers from less traditional families are more likely to have a tumultuous or periodically troubled adolescence and, as adults, to be in less traditional families and to be more poorly adjusted.

Daniel Offer, M.D., professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Feinberg School of Medicine, and colleagues conducted a longitudinal study that evaluated 67 normal, mentally healthy, suburban male participants initially in 1962, when the boys were 14, and again in 1997, at age 48. Participants were questioned about family relationships, home environment, dating, sexuality, religion, parental discipline and general activities. Ten percent of the families were African-American or Hispanic.
As reported in the December issue of Adolescent and Family Health, the men who had been raised in intact two-parent, middle-class families were more likely to be married, be involved in traditional family relationships, attend religious services and participate in sports or exercise.

Unlike the boys in the "continuous" group, those from the "tumultuous" group were more likely to come from disrupted backgrounds. As adults, they were significantly less likely to be married or involved in traditional family relationships and unlikely to attend church and to exercise.

Results of the study indicate that continuity is an important aspect of development, Offer said.

The teenagers who came from a positive family background had no adolescent turmoil, sailed through adolescence and young adulthood and continued to live a life in harmony with their background.

Those in the "tumultuous" adolescent group also continued to reflect the adjustment of their teenage years, Offer said. The boys in this group had questioned cultural norms and, as adults, were more likely to live outside cultural norms.

"Both groups still hold on to the position they had as adolescents and young adults," Offer said.

Offer also said that results of this study test the psychoanalytic theory that adolescents who appear to be well adjusted as teenagers are "ticking time bombs" who will show significant maladjustment later in life.
the first article says nothing about atheism. it speaks more about apathy towards religion. however, there is no reason to believe that atheists are more likely to be apathetic than religious people are. i would actually suggest that atheists are probably less apathetic in general than non-atheists, as atheism is not the norm and so it requires some bit of caring about the subject for most people to become atheists.

the second article mentions religion once and speaks nothing else about it.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

the first article says nothing about atheism. it speaks more about apathy towards religion.

Isn't that what atheism is? Or atleast YOUR brand of atheism?


i would actually suggest that atheists are probably less apathetic in general than non-atheists, as atheism is not the norm and so it requires some bit of caring about the subject for most people to become atheists.

Good point.

But why would an atheist be more apathetic than a casual believer?

When I say casual, I don't mean someone who doesn't attend church every Sunday or pray every day.

Explain this (and yes, it is anecdotal).

I met a guy while I was hospitalized two years ago. He attempted suicide, abused every drug out there, had a kid with some woman who he knocked up on the first date after meeting her on the internet...oh and he was a devout atheists and was not shy about speaking about it to the nurses and staff.

Maybe it was just general apathy, but he told everyone about his atheism.

Why is that? Why the apparent correlation (again this is anecdotal) between atheism and apathy?

How come all of the troubled kids that I went to school with were never enrolled in Sunday School or weren't members of the church?

And yes, there were troubled kids who went the whole nine yards and turned out to be major league fuck-ups. But how come every kid who was a major league fuck-up never attended what every other kid went through?

Perhaps they were just apathetic to begin with and no amount of "insane rituals" would help them.

Maybe it is just apathy? But it seems to be correlated with atheism. You can't deny it.



the second article mentions religion once and speaks nothing else about it.

Not explicitly but it implied through the words of "traditional".

I'll ask: What is wrong with being traditional in today's day in age?

Why are you so against kids going to school, getting good grades, obeying the law, playing recreational sports, being confirmed, not getting tattoos, staying away from drugs and promiscious sex?

The articles suggest that being raised by caring parents coupled with community involvement prevents problems like the ones I described above.

And communists seem to have a problem with it.

Why?

[Fodman]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 26, 2007 05:55 pm
Why are you so against kids going to school, getting good grades, obeying the law, playing recreational sports, being confirmed, not getting tattoos, staying away from drugs and promiscious sex?

what's wrong with tattoos?
come on man, all drugs aren't THAT bad
what's wrong with sex, so long as it's safe?

you're not one of those guys that thinks the world was made in seven days and thinks that 'God' put dinosaur bones in the earth to 'play tricks' on us logically-minded folk? Are you?



It did nothing for my life, except make me waste large chunks of it going to church, sitting around in church being bored, and then going home again.

But drug use and violent video games are constructive activities, right?
so nothing about religion is in any way violent are you saying?


now if you don't mind, i'm off to worship the flying spaghetti monster, because i BELIEVE he exists, so he MUST do

[wtfm8lol]

Isn't that what atheism is? Or atleast YOUR brand of atheism?

No. Atheism is a lack of belief in the supernatural. It has nothing to do with apathy. Some atheists are apathetic towards things in general, whereas others aren't, and it is the same on the other side of the fence. And- my brand of atheism? I don't have any brand of atheism. I don't believe in the supernatural and that's all there is to it.


Explain this (and yes, it is anecdotal).

I met a guy while I was hospitalized two years ago. He attempted suicide, abused every drug out there, had a kid with some woman who he knocked up on the first date after meeting her on the internet...oh and he was a devout atheists and was not shy about speaking about it to the nurses and staff.

Maybe it was just general apathy, but he told everyone about his atheism.

I have no reason to explain anecdotes. Provide me data and I will consider explaining it.


How come all of the troubled kids that I went to school with were never enrolled in Sunday School or weren't members of the church?

They were probably troubled because they had shitty parents. If the kids didn't get their sense of right and wrong from the church they would have needed their parents to give it to them, and shitty parents probably don't teach their kids right from wrong.


Maybe it is just apathy? But it seems to be correlated with atheism. You can't deny it.

What are you basing this on? Apathy towards religion is NOT atheism. Atheists are probably the least apathetic towards religion of any major group.

[Zero]

Please, lets separate your common Atheism and Anti-Theism.

[wtfm8lol]

Please, lets separate your common Atheism and Anti-Theism.

who is talking about anti-theism?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

who is talking about anti-theism?

Isn't that what the majority here are? So why are you calling yourselves atheists?


No. Atheism is a lack of belief in the supernatural. It has nothing to do with apathy.

All I said was that there is a correlation with a "lack of belief in the supernatural" and apathy.

Not all atheists are apathetic but most apathetics are anti-theists.

But for one to be anti-thesist doesn't that require some rejection of the supernatural?


I have no reason to explain anecdotes. Provide me data and I will consider explaining it.

Didn't you read the articles I posted?

It seems that my anecdotes support the article's findings.


what's wrong with tattoos?

What's right with tattoos?


"From the statistics of the Royal Naval survey, the most significant factor to emerge was almost certainly the incidence of regrets. Out of the whole sample, more than half admitted that they wished they had never been tattooed. In the married group, the figure rose to around 70 per cent."
(Ronald Scutt, Art, Sex and Symbol, 1974, p. 179)

One article claims that as many as 80 percent of people with tattoos regret their tattoo.

www.spacecom.af.mil/hqafspc/News/News_Asp/nws_tmp.asp?storyid=02-93


come on man, all drugs aren't THAT bad

If used very sparingly (like alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine) and in appropriate circumstances.



what's wrong with sex, so long as it's safe?

Yeah.

This isn't puritanical, just common sense.


you're not one of those guys that thinks the world was made in seven days and thinks that 'God' put dinosaur bones in the earth to 'play tricks' on us logically-minded folk? Are you?

Nope.

And I haven't been to a regular church service in over 4 years.

But I don't deny the importance it can have in development of well-rounded people.


They were probably troubled because they had shitty parents. If the kids didn't get their sense of right and wrong from the church they would have needed their parents to give it to them, and shitty parents probably don't teach their kids right from wrong.

According to the article, "Shitty parents" arent likely to have their kids enrolled in extra-curricular activities, including religious orientated ones.

Coincidence?


Apathy towards religion is NOT atheism

Again, it is correlated with atheism.

[wtfm8lol]

Isn't that what the majority here are? So why are you calling yourselves atheists?

All anti-theists are atheists, whereas not all atheists are anti-theists. Anti-theists hold the positive belief that the supernatural does not exist, whereas one only needs to lack a belief in the supernatural to be an atheist.


but most apathetics are anti-theists.

what are you drawing this conclusion from?


Didn't you read the articles I posted?

Yes. They did not provide any statistical evidence for a correlation between apathy towards things in general and atheism.



According to the article, "Shitty parents" arent likely to have their kids enrolled in extra-curricular activities, including religious orientated ones.

Coincidence?

shitty parents raise their kids to be shitty. thats about all i can logically draw from there, considering that the study only consisted of 70 or so individuals, which is not nearly enough to draw conclusive results about such a wide range of things.

[Fodman]

as a kid i took part in many after school activities - guitar and keyboard lessons, as well as ninjitsu, fencing and boxing - please note that none of these were religion orientated, and i turned out alright

of course, tattoos can be removed nowadays (however i am aware of the costly nature of such operations) - plus, people should think ahead when getting one, as they may not want it there later on in life

just because YOU don't like the look of tattoos, doesn't deter the fact that people have the freedom to get tattoos if they want, just have you have the freedom to believe in a magical being in the sky, and we have the freedom to rip the piss out of you for it

[ichneumon]

Again, it is correlated with atheism.

Atheism is a religion, you goober. Agnostics are apathetic, atheists are usually very fervent.

[wtfm8lol]

Atheism is a religion

this is a joke right?

[Lenin II]

One of the biggest things I think that the religious fail to understand about atheism is morality. It is unfathomable for some people to grasp the concept of self-imposed morality, or self-imposed value systems: they have been taught throughout their whole lives to appeal to authority. Religious, academic, societal and governmental, the appeals are all the same. Atheism proposes we move beyond these artificial and arbitrary appeals, and start creating our own meaning, start appealing to our own uniqueness as an evolved species, for our morality and values.

Faith is defined as the "firm belief in something for which there is no proof."

Faith is an imperative hazard to group and individual because it compels suspension of reason, critical analysis and common sense. Nietzsche once said that faith means not wanting to know. Faith is "don't let those pesky facts get in the way of our political plan or our mystically ordained path to heaven"; faith is "do what I tell you because I said so."
FUCK faith.

[Ol' Dirty]

Capitalist Lawyer:

Support your own theology by proving god's infalibility, please.

[ichneumon]

this is a joke right?


don't get your panties in a bunch -

wikipedia:


Sociologists and anthropologists tend to see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix. For example, in Lindbeck's Nature of Doctrine, religion does not refer to belief in "God" or a transcendent Absolute. Instead, Lindbeck defines religion as, "a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought… it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments.”[3] According to this definition, religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions.

[MrDoom]

According to this definition, religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions.

Which atheism does not do.

[Zero]

Originally posted by "Capitalist Lawyer"+--> ("Capitalist Lawyer")Isn't that what the majority here are? So why are you calling yourselves atheists?[/b]Anti-Theism isn't a word that is thrown around as much as Atheist. We all believe differently, some people don't believe, some people are against belief. It's easier to pick the middle ground in reference to a group.


Originally posted by "Capitalist Lawyer"+--> ("Capitalist Lawyer")All I said was that there is a correlation with a "lack of belief in the supernatural" and apathy.[/b]How? How is there a correlation between not believing in something, and not being active?

("Capitalist Lawyer")Not all atheists are apathetic but most apathetics are anti-theists.[/b][/quote]I'd love to see you try to back up your statements. :lol:


"Capitalist Lawyer"@
But for one to be anti-thesist doesn't that require some rejection of the supernatural?Well that would be up to the individual wouldn't it?


"Capitalist Lawyer"
But I don't deny the importance it can have in development of well-rounded people.Haven't been to a church service in my life. Does that mean I'm not a well-rounded person?

[Publius]

Since I'm a Hitchens kick, here's his speech on "The Moral Necessity of Atheism": http://youtube.com/watch?v=eSmh03pL44o

But don't listen to him, he support the Iraq war!

:lol:

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 26, 2007 12:02 pm
I bet you weren't even baptized you freak, and I even bet that you wish you were.
Oh shit, he didn't get water sprinkled on his head? Well, obviously that makes him a lost cause! :rolleyes:

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 26, 2007 12:09 pm
Fine, if all religious people are "stupid *****es who've been fooled" then all working-class people are fat, stupid slobs.
The religious comment is true, all religious people believe in mystical bullshit, however not all workers are lazy, stupid or slobs, and said insult is an genrealization, whereas the first comment is not, because it applies to all religious types, no matter to what degree do they believe in the supernatural, it still applies.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 26, 2007 01:16 pm
Yeah, we're all freaks...but the guy walking around with a tattoo on his face and 500 piercings and who has a police record is a "sane citizen".
What the fuck did that have to do with Atheism?


But drug use and violent video games are constructive activities, right?

Like half the shit any one does is really constructive, and in all honesty, sitting in a musty church hearing the same tired out rag, over and over again, for years, is a BIG waste of time, the concept isn't hard, you can learn all you need to in 2 services.


Another question. Did you even play little league baseball or any other sport when you were a youth?

Sports=Lame.

Books are better.


Are you normal?

No.

[Lenin II]

I just can't see calling someone who feels it is their life's mission to convince me that I am a sinning unworthy worm doomed to everlasting death if I don't share their personal self-deprecating psychosis “really nice”. I mean at best that's rude arrogance...don't you think?

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 26, 2007 01:55 pm
I met a guy
I know of priests molesting children, being the thinkers of mass suicides, and of causing things like witch burnings, and the like, why the apparent turn to violence and madness?

See how such arguments work? ;)

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Hitchens lost a debate to Galloway, Publius. Galloway. He is not worthy of praise on those grounds purely. :)

Also, he's a sell-out ****.

I'll still probably get his atheism book when it's out though.

-Alex

[Publius]

Hitchens lost a debate to Galloway, Publius. Galloway. He is not worthy of praise on those grounds purely. :)

He didn't lose the debate. He may have been wrong, but he didn't lose the actual debate. He managed to provide that Galloway genuflected to Saddam and Abdullah, and Galloway NEVER refuted those claims.

Any man who praised Saddam's "undefinability" (Galloway's word) is not in any position to be tossing around insults.



Also, he's a sell-out ****.

To whom did he out-sell? Honestly.





I'll still probably get his atheism book when it's out though.

As you should.

He's undoubtedly the better of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins when it comes to arguing for atheism and he's certainly a better a writer, though Dawkins is certainly formidable.

[Zero]

I saw that debate... it wasn't much of a debate, and more of George throwing insults at Hitchens.

Not that I don't completely agree with George, but he needs to present opinion beside fact.

[Red October]

oh, fuck! some asshat in robes never dunked me while i was an infant! my life is a never ending cycle of immorality and pain.

im happy i was never baptized. i lead a happy life and have friends of many different religions. i've managed to stay out of jail and legal trouble so far, and i dont have lots of irresponsible sex and drugs. overall, i feel pretty happy with my godless life.

[Publius]

I saw that debate... it wasn't much of a debate, and more of George throwing insults at Hitchens.

Not that I don't completely agree with George, but he needs to present opinion beside fact.

Exactly.

And to show my impartiality, I thought Jon Stewart did a MUCH better job making the anti-war argument to Hitch during a Daily Show interview. He hit all the high notes and all the problems in 5 minutes.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I'm sceptical that he'll beat The End Of Faith, to be frank. That was masterful stuff, excluding the last chapter.

And the title is lame. "God Is Not Great"? Shit. Somebody had writer's block.

Dawkins is brilliant at what he does, but The God Delusion was just stating the obvious. It was an ABC of atheism.

1. Refute Aquinas.
2. Morality needn't be God given.
3. Defend evolution.
4. Remind everyone that Stalin being an atheist doesn't say anything about us.

It's pretty simple. I could do all that to a reasonable standard. Dawkins does it near-perfectly, of course, but Harris has a totally new angle.


Intellectually it has to be Daniel Dennet's Breaking The Spell, though.

-Alex

[luxemburg89]

"I bet you weren't even baptized you freak, and I even bet that you wish you were." anyone not baptised is a freak? so you were a freak until you were baptised? when you came out of your mother's vagina you were a total freak - i agree. :D

Russell once said that it is better to live your life as if there is a God, rather than not believing and finding out there is when you die. Utter bollocks - in that case you waste your life looking at the sky, when you are surrounded by life, more interesting, diverse and beautiful than heaven. Not that capitalists would know anything about beauty...

[Publius]

I'm sceptical that he'll beat The End Of Faith, to be frank. That was masterful stuff, excluding the last chapter.

And the title is lame. "God Is Not Great"? Shit. Somebody had writer's block.

No arguments here.

I like Harris, and that is a terrible title.

See, 'The Missionary Position' was a witty title. This, not so much.



Dawkins is brilliant at what he does, but The God Delusion was just stating the obvious. It was an ABC of atheism.

1. Refute Aquinas.

Not hard.

Here are all of Aquinas' proofs, in easy to remember form:

There cannot be a first cause, therefore there is a first cause.

I wish I came up with that all on my own, but I didn't. And what's really funny is, it's exactly accurate for Aquinas' 'proofs'.



2. Morality needn't be God given.
3. Defend evolution.
4. Remind everyone that Stalin being an atheist doesn't say anything about us.

It's pretty simple. I could do all that to a reasonable standard. Dawkins does it near-perfectly, of course, but Harris has a totally new angle.


Intellectually it has to be Daniel Dennet's Breaking The Spell, though.


I've always liked Dennet. He gets overlooked and lumped in with Dawkins and Harris, but he's actually sort of unique, and probably more intellectual, as you said. I just bought a book by Dennet (well, edited and compiled by Dennet and Hofstadter) this last weekend.

[razboz]

Looks like the original debate petered out.

i still dont get the need for atheists to read books on atheism. I mean how much do you need to know about the abscence of god? "Thaere is no god" suits me fine. I dont need proof that there isnt a God. that's just not how science work. You prove stuff, not disprove it.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 26, 2007 04:02 pm
I bet you weren't even baptized you freak
[img]http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f194/UndeadFaith/OH_NOES.jpg' alt='' width='400' height='401' class='attach' /> (http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f194/UndeadFaith/OH_NOES.jpg)

Seriously I was baptised, and fuck all difference that made, eh? I can't een pretend that I am angry I was baptised, because it s just so irrelevent to me. I would have preferred to be raised on religious, but tat is just because as a kid, I found church boring. Still do as a matter of fact if I have to go to a funeral or whatever.

But really, I am completely and utterly non religious now, I dare say you believe I must be crsed or whatever as a result? Well believe that if you must, if that is what it takes to give you a sense of worth, but you come across as deluded.

[Publius]

Looks like the original debate petered out.

i still dont get the need for atheists to read books on atheism. I mean how much do you need to know about the abscence of god? "Thaere is no god" suits me fine. I dont need proof that there isnt a God. that's just not how science work. You prove stuff, not disprove it.

There's something innately appealing, at least to me, about a satisfactory logical argument.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

i still dont get the need for atheists to read books on atheism. I mean how much do you need to know about the abscence of god? "Thaere is no god" suits me fine. I dont need proof that there isnt a God. that's just not how science work. You prove stuff, not disprove it.

Well, I must confess that I'm something of a conversionist atheist. Yeah, guilty pleasure and all that jazz.

Basically, the books contain superior arguments, or rather the same arguments in a superior form. In the case of Dennet, religion as a natural phenomenon is a new argument for me. It strengthens the arsenal, as it were.

I also have a near-pathological need for certitude, or as near as damn it. Atheism is far and away my most confident belief, apart from like 2+2=4 and truisms.

It's very nice to have such a rock when my other opinions constantly fluctuate. The books help solidify my non belief. :)

-Alex

P.S. This really makes me sound like I have a religious personality. <_<

[razboz]

i never really felt the need to reinforce my lack of beleif, having grown up without god. Its just been one of those things ive taken for granted: the sky is above, the ground is below, i cant become a giant robot (i wished this was true for a lot of my childhood), there is no god...

Which is why i didnt understand the need for atheist literature: why dont we write more books about how little we can tranform into robots or how i really, REALLY cant read peoples minds. But i know not everyone had the luck to grow up free of religion in a society where there is no drive to be more devout than thou. I often take that for granted :(

[Publius]

Read this and you might understand: http://alternet.org/rights/49811/

You&#39;re an atheist, good for you. But other people aren&#39;t, and you can&#39;t simply ignore them. Or at least, I can&#39;t, as I&#39;m an American.

It&#39;d be great if they could take their wacky delusions to Texas or Hell (same thing?) and stay away from regular folk, but they can&#39;t, or at least they don&#39;t. And so we&#39;re stuck with them, and we have to fight them.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I really agree with Publius.

It&#39;s like, i am an atheist, and i used to think Richard Dawkins was cool, going round telling people how stupid they are and mocking them.

But, i really don&#39;t think he is changing anything.

He traps the argument between a clash of ideas of the atheist scientific approach and the theist irrational approach.

But, our secular societies, where the old Oxford and Harvard elites, Atheists and theists alike, are privatising our healthcare, reducing pensions, selling off public transport, taking away our free university education, invading countries.....

Dawkins is wrong, purely because he addresses religion as the problem, and while it certainly is in redneck schools of America, its not really a problem outside "science" lessons.

Its wont address any of the above things that are being taken away from the rational atheist elites.

[apathy maybe]

Hi people. I just thought I&#39;d get involved again. Here are a couple of interesting thinks
The first is Russell&#39;steapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell&#39;steapot).

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Also, how not to convert an atheist for all those theists out there.
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/hownot.html

[IcarusAngel]

Yeah, Russell&#39;s teapot is a good example of why you can&#39;t prove the negative. But Russell himself actually had some arguments against religion (Christianity in specific) that surpasses Dawkins himself.

[Publius]

I really agree with Publius.

I don&#39;t you think agree with me. You seem to have misunderstood; I&#39;m in the pro-Dawkins camp, to a degree.

My point was that he do have to fight religious ignorance wherever we encounter it, though I too question the efficacy (if not the intent or the assertions) of Dawkins et al.

But yeah, re-read my previous post, and flip it around, and you should better see where I&#39;m coming from.



It&#39;s like, i am an atheist, and i used to think Richard Dawkins was cool, going round telling people how stupid they are and mocking them.

But, i really don&#39;t think he is changing anything.

I agree with this, that most Christians won&#39;t listen to Dawkins (or anyone else for that matter.) But that doesn&#39;t make Dawkins wrong; proselytizing the truth is never wrong.



He traps the argument between a clash of ideas of the atheist scientific approach and the theist irrational approach.

That IS the argument. It&#39;s not a trap.



But, our secular societies, where the old Oxford and Harvard elites, Atheists and theists alike, are privatising our healthcare, reducing pensions, selling off public transport, taking away our free university education, invading countries.....

Dawkins is wrong, purely because he addresses religion as the problem, and while it certainly is in redneck schools of America, its not really a problem outside "science" lessons.

How timely...

Read this: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=2983119



Its wont address any of the above things that are being taken away from the rational atheist elites.

It&#39;s not meant. And arguing that fascism is wrong won&#39;t change the oil in your car either, but that&#39;s a red herring.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Publius




How timely...

Read this: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=2983119



Er....



"I think many people use God as their justification for violent and aggressive actions," Bushman said. "Take the current conflict in Iraq as an example. Bush claims that God is on his side. Osama bin Laden claims that God, or Allah, is on his side."

Well, this guy is clearly confused. Osama bin Laden has nothing to do with the resistance in Iraq.

As for the assertion that Religion is able to make people more susceptible to violence is no doubt true.

Using God as a justification for violence is common place.

However, whether or not people, students in the case of the article, are theists has no bearing on invading another country, it merely means its less likely for the population to react against it with animosity.

it is, and i hope you will forgive me, an opiate of the masses.

The highly educated elites in the United States planned the Iraq War, military advisers worked through the actual implementation of it.

Religion is not going to play any role in the planing or implementation. It was the economic motivation, the strategic power of a friendly regime in Iraq that would give American bourgeoisie the actual motivation to invade.

[Publius]

Well, this guy is clearly confused. Osama bin Laden has nothing to do with the resistance in Iraq.

That&#39;s debatable.



As for the assertion that Religion is able to make people more susceptible to violence is no doubt true.

Using God as a justification for violence is common place.

However, whether or not people, students in the case of the article, are theists has no bearing on invading another country, it merely means its less likely for the population to react against it with animosity.

it is, and i hope you will forgive me, an opiate of the masses.

The highly educated elites in the United States planned the Iraq War, military advisers worked through the actual implementation of it.

Religion is not going to play any role in the planing or implementation. It was the economic motivation, the strategic power of a friendly regime in Iraq that would give American bourgeoisie the actual motivation to invade.

America is a democracy, and the American People overwhelmingly supported the war and re-elected Bush.

Certainly the blame starts with &#39;the bourgeosie&#39;, but it certainly doesn&#39;t end there. Bush made an effort to use religious language (probably not cynically; the man is just an idiot) to back his militant aims. That effect was not lost on the American people. A lot of them see this as something of religious struggle. That&#39;s taking the situation from bad to worse, and I can assure you, the monied interests, even though they may want an imperialist war, certainly don&#39;t want a religious war.

Religion doesn&#39;t play a role in the corridors of power, or at least the corridors located in Washington. But that doesn&#39;t mean it doesn&#39;t play a, in this case pernicious, role.

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 26, 2007 03:51 pm
Looks like a real arrogant prick to me, like all the rest of the atheists. I&#39;m sure many of you will find kinship with this young man.
We&#39;re arrogant? How do you have the nerve to call us arrogant when you are so narrow-minded and dogmatic that you believe in something you can&#39;t even see based on a book which is essentially an elaborate fairytale and has been proved to be wrong more times than I can remember. Religion is responsible for death and suffering and if thats what you want to associate yourself with then be my guest, but you don&#39;t have the right to call atheists &#39;arrogant&#39;.